In the Interest of J.R., a Child v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 14, 2025
• Docket: 02-25-00251-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00251-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 360th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 360-719564-22

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 3, 2024, the trial court signed an order holding Appellant J.A.S.

in contempt for failing to pay child support as ordered by the court. The court

ordered Appellant confined for fourteen days in the Tarrant County Jail for each

violation but suspended commitment under terms spelled out in the order. On April

25, 2025, the trial court signed an “Order on Motion to Revoke Suspension of

Commitment.” The trial court found that Appellant had failed to comply with the

terms of suspension in the prior order, but in lieu of revoking the suspended

commitment, the trial court ordered that suspension “shall continue to be suspended

until December 3, 2027[,] provided that [Appellant] complies with” terms set out in

the order. That same date, the trial court also signed “Agreed Order Modifying Child

Custody Evaluation,” ordering the completion of a child custody evaluation.

Appellant filed her notice of appeal from “the judgment or order . . . signed on April

25, 2025.”

We notified Appellant of our concern that we may not have jurisdiction over

this appeal. See In re B.W.B., No. 02-14-00197-CV, 2014 WL 3696073, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth July 24, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Cadle Co. v.

Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) (en banc); see

also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 105.001(e) (providing that temporary orders rendered in

suits affecting the parent–child relationship are not subject to interlocutory appeal).

We cautioned her that unless she or any party filed a response showing grounds for

2 continuing the appeal, we could dismiss her appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (noting that generally,

appeals may be taken only from final judgments and from certain interlocutory orders

made immediately appealable by statute); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

§ 51.014(a) (listing appealable interlocutory orders). We have not received a response.

Because we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss the appeal for

want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: August 14, 2025